Jan 4, 2007

Opposition builds over

 plan for Home Depot

Long Beach residents and others, worried that the project could harm nearby wetlands, hope to appeal the city's decision to approve it.

By Nancy Wride, Times Staff Writer
January 4, 2007

 

Map

 

Concerned

click to enlarge

On the southeastern edge of Long Beach near the Orange County line, Janice Dahl and hundreds of her neighbors long ago learned to coexist with a power plant and a slew of oil pumps.

But a Home Depot is something else.

"Power plants don't generate traffic," said Dahl, a real estate broker and the president of the 450-member University Park Estates Homeowner's Assn. "A Home Depot does thousands of cars per day."

This year, the California Coastal Commission is expected to hear appeals by the homeowners group and others including two commissioners of the Long Beach City Council's recent approval of a retail center anchored by a Home Depot. It would be the first big-box store to be built in the coastal zone of Los Angeles and Orange counties, officials said.

The commission's staff, Dahl's group and other residents are concerned about the effect the project would have on the nearby Los Cerritos Wetlands. Environmentalists have long sought to restore the 400-acre marsh, which is dotted by oil derricks near the mouth of the San Gabriel River, as a haven for fish and migrating birds.

The Trust for Public Land bought 66 acres of the marsh from private owners in June, then gave the land to the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority. The authority, which will have to pay for the restoration, is made up of local conservancies and the cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach.

"How does the city think wetlands can be restored across the street from this giant retail store it just approved?" Dahl asked.

Reed Holderman, western regional director of the national nonprofit Trust for Public Land, said there have been cases in which retail development, such as a Costco store in San Francisco near the shore, was properly planned to reduce the effects on nature.

But because several groups hope to buy and restore all 400 acres of the Los Cerritos marsh at a cost of millions of dollars, he said extensive protections would be essential for wildlife and the development to coexist.

"Let's face it: You put a Home Depot there, there's going to be a lot of human activity there," added Holderman, who said he had faith the commission would thoroughly evaluate the project.

"Somebody should ask the question, 'What does this proposed development do, positively or negatively, to this huge public investment into the Los Cerritos Wetlands,' " he said.

The Home Depot project has the support of a majority of the City Council, including Gary DeLong, whose district encompasses the development. The 9,000-home Leisure World community across the San Gabriel River has registered no opposition and the Long Beach Unified School District, which has two schools nearby, has backed off from early concerns about traffic.

Long Beach's environmental impact report estimated the project would add 5,780 vehicles on weekdays and 8,500 on weekend days to already busy roads leading to the proposed Home Depot and to the Garden Grove Freeway entrance nearest Cal State Long Beach. Residential and commercial developments planned nearby could make traffic even worse, critics said.

DeLong said that he is concerned about traffic but that city planners assured him any snarls could be relieved with roadway improvements. He supported the development because it would rid the area of some abandoned natural gas tanks and provide the city with much-needed tax revenue.

He said Long Beach needs more officers for its Police Department and is facing more than $100 million in deferred maintenance of its fire stations plus a $150-million shortfall over the next decade to repair streets and sidewalks.

"The car dealers, and the associated tax revenue, left our city some years ago," DeLong said. "Since it does not appear that most of our residents are interested in tax increases, we need to focus on economic development to generate more tax revenues."

For decades, industry and hundreds of residences have coexisted along this coastal stretch of Long Beach, which also includes a golf course and marina.

Marice White, a public relations consultant for Home Depot, and the property owner, Thomas Dean, said Dean made no secret of the fact that he bought the land knowing the retailer wanted to build a store there. The project would be an improvement of the existing site, White said.

Dean purchased the land from AES Corp. after it was forced to meet post-Enron regulations regarding energy holdings, White said.

But AES, along with the homeowner group, is now fighting the Home Depot project in court. It believes placing a high-volume retail center next to a power plant presents a potential national security risk.

The project would be constructed on 16.5 acres north of 2nd Street, between the river and Studebaker Road, beside the AES power plant.

An environmental review found that the development, which would be built on a tank farm 200 feet from the wetlands, would not harm the marsh. But critics argue that runoff from the retail center's 752-space parking lot would carry pollutants into the wetlands.

After months of heated debate, the City Council voted 6 to 3 in October to approve the project with conditions, overriding the city's own Local Coastal Plan. The benefits of the project outweighed existing zoning and open space requirements, the council found.

But residents, the AES power plant and two coastal commissioners appealed the decision. The commission voted in November to take up the matter, nullifying the council's action, said Angela Reynolds, the city's environmental planning officer.

The commission's staff report cites concerns over the effect of the large retail complex on existing traffic, wildlife, wetlands and tidal waters on adjacent land. The property owner must submit details of promised environmental solutions before a hearing date is scheduled.

A California Coastal Commission staff summary of the project is at http://www.coastal.ca.gov .

---

nancy.wride@latimes.com

----------------------------------

 

10/4/06  It amazes me how they glossed over many issues and completely ignored 5000 signatures against the Home Depot!  Many questions were answered with "I dont know, I will get back to you on that"....

LBReport.com

News

Council Votes 6-3 (O'Donnell, Schipske, Gabelich Dissenting) To Approve Home Depot (Studebaker/Loynes) Development

---

(Oct. 3, 2006) -- Following roughly five hours of testimony by city staff, the land owner/developer, EIR appellants and the public, the City Council voted 6-3 (O'Donnell, Schipske, Gabelich dissenting) to approve Home Depot (Studebaker/Loynes) commercial development.

The vote came at roughly 11:35 p.m. after several of the appellants urged 3d district Councilman DeLong to support a moratorium on eastside commercial or industrial commercial development until completion of a master plan...and made similar appeals to Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal, citing her pressure for a moratorium on downtown matters. Both declined...and supported the project.

During the hearing, environmental attorney Jan Chatten Brown cited alleged EIR deficiencies. Several appellants urged restoration of the area as wetlands...and some urged using the site for a solar energy facility. Figures were cited by one appellant contending solar energy revenue could exceed that of a commercial development.

Former Councilman Doug Drummond opposed the project via a letter read into the record, urging completion of a master plan first. Former LB City Manager James Hankla (now Harbor Commissioner, stating his opinion in his personal capacity as an ELB resident) supported the project via a letter read into the record.

Following a short break, Vice Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal swiftly moved to deny the EIR appeals, certify the EIR and "add conditions of approval requiring Home Depot to (1) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building to achieve lead certification and (2) the Home Depot will to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building provide a fair share contribution to the restoration of Los Cerritos wetlands within one year of the opening of the store, provided that a special improvement district or other legal mechanism is established or dedicated to the restoration of the Los Cerritos wetlands."

Councilman Gary DeLong said he would support the project on grounds something will be developed on the site, a commercial development is preferable to an industrial use and the city needs the project's revenues. Councilman DeLong agreed that an eastside master plan was needed and said he's invited residents to develop one...for the future.

Councilman Patrick O'Donnell cited wetlands and traffic impacts and advocated sending the project back to find additional mitigation measures. Councilwoman Laura Richardson supported the project.

Vice Mayor Lowenthal then said she then had questions, producing an extended supportive colloquy with the land owner's attorney, Doug Otto and also city staff. Vice Mayor Lowenthal concluded by saying she believes all parts of the city should be treated equally and doesn't want any more sales tax dollars going to Signal Hill or elsewhere.

Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga indicated that as an AQMD Boardmember, she was concerned about the project's impacts...and asked city staff for its conatcts with AQMD. City staff said AQMD was satisfied that the EIR had addressed their concerns; Councilwoman Reyes Uranga said this was consistent with her understanding of AQMD's position. Councilwoman Reyes Uranga added that Home Depots near her district hadn't created negative impacts, wetlands projects weren't before the Council now and accordingly would support the project. [This made five supportive Council votes].

Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske said she believes the project needs to be returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration, citing concerns about legal findings needed to approve a conditional use permit, the development's potenmtial to draw business away from existing ELB businesses...and problems with day laborers. She also cited a lack of analysis about having commercial project next to the AES power plant. Councilwoman Schipske said it's foolish for others to suggest that those on the Council concerned about the project are not cognizant of economic and revenue matters, but are concerned about quality of life and spot zoning.

Concilwoman Suja Lowenthal voiced concerns about storm water management and permeable asphalt and water-conserving strategies. She then cited comments made in Mr. Hankla's letter about the need for sales tax revenue and said she was concerned about the fiscalization of land use policy...and the decisionmaking wasn't optimal but is the legacy of Prop 13. Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal said the net revenues that would result from the Home Depot project distinguished it from the downtown Plaza Development which she opposed as a grassroots advocate, saying her opposition stemmed in part from the Plaza not scheduled to produce net revenue for the city for many years. She indicated the city shouldn't oppose projects on the eastside that it would allow elsewhere. She said the downtown visioning process/moratorium she supported downtown wasn't meant to hold up projects.

Concilwoman Rae Gabelich asked about AES issues and also wetlands property ownership for traffic mitigation...which staff said it was unable to conclusively answer. Councilwoman Gabelich extracted from city staff the admission that there is no guarantee in Council approval of the project that it will remain a Home Depot "design center"...and could in fact subsequently become some other kind of home improvement store.

Councilwoman Gabelich asked Vice Mayor Lowenthal to accept a friendly amendment to her motion to specify that a special assessment district will be created. Vice Mayor Lowenthal declined. Councilwoman Gabelich then sought and won reconsideration of her previous vote supporting certification the EIR...and withdrawing her previous support for certifying the EIR.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7/28/06

Trouble in the soil at

 

new Home Depot site?

 

Air Quality Management District warns that detailed studies on ground contamination are needed.

By Joe Segura, Staff writer

Article Launched: 07/27/2006 10:56:00 PM PDT

 

LONG BEACH - The South Coast Air Quality Management District has warned city planners that an environmental impact report for a proposed Eastside Home Depot needs detailed studies on soil contamination.

The analysis echoes a review by the state Department of Toxic Substances Control that found the EIR lacking in key examinations, including the identification of any release of hazardous waste and substances.

And officials at the neighboring AES Southland plant said the EIR fails to analyze the security measures needed to protect the generating station from entry by unauthorized persons.

"The location of the proposed project development is a concern to the security of the generating station," said AES President Tony Chavez, adding that the tank farm now restricts access to the power plant. "Conversion ... would place the public within close proximity to the generation units."

Failure to provide the essential data in an EIR could, according to critics, halt the plans for the proposed project - pegged for Studebaker Road, adjacent to Loynes Drive. The site is zoned industrial and now holds six above-ground oil storage tanks and pipelines.

"They've thrown down the gauntlet," said environmental

activist Don May, commenting on the AQMD July 14 warning letter.

Critics contend the project - described as a design center offering "upscale activity" - will also aggravate gridlocked traffic, alleging that the environmental report also ignored those problems.

The developer's representatives could not be reached for comment Thursday.

However, in a Planning Commission study session July 6, Home Depot attorney Doug Otto said the project site will have a "high-end" restaurant and two retail stores. It will also feature a public gathering area, Otto said.

The attorney said the store would improve the area's streets through $2.4 million in road improvements. The developer has also asserted there's a potential of $2.5 million in sales tax revenues being pumped into the city's general fund during the store's first five years.

However, critics have hammered away at the EIR, saying that it fails to address a number of key traffic issues, including bottlenecks along Pacific Coast Highway at Second and Seventh streets.

The critics also complain that nearby Loynes Drive is not designed for major traffic, since it's built on a landfill.

Many homeowners at University Park Estates said they're planning to push for a moratorium on development until an extensive traffic study in the southeast area is undertaken.

The AQMD warning letter emphasized that it is concerned about data showing that methane soil gas concentrations as high as 40,000 parts per million by volume within the Tank No. 4 area, exceeding the regulatory threshold of 5,000 ppm.

The AQMD staff, according to the warning letter, "believes that until detailed studies are done to determine the extent of ... contamination in the soils ... it is premature for the lead agency (Long Beach)to conclude that the project site does not pose an environmental concern."

Joe Segura can be reached at joe.segura@presstelegram.com or at 499-1274.

7/8/06

Approve The Home Depot

 

City would benefit by adding jobs, sales taxes, and shopping choices

Article Launched: 07/08/2006 11:00:00 PM PDT

 

Long Beach planners are soliciting input on a request by The Home Depot to build a design center on the Eastside. Since they're asking for opinions, here's ours: Let them build it.

The city should seize the chance to let a developer tear down an ugly, fenced-in oil tank farm and replace it with the nation's No. 2 retailer, two smaller stores and an upscale restaurant. The private property on Studebaker Road and Loynes Drive is zoned for a far less-friendly use than retail - industrial - and the land could be used for much worse endeavors than what we now call a hardware store.

The main reasons we support this project are economic. The Home Depot hopes to provide decently paying jobs and $2.5 million in sales tax revenue over the first five years in a city that needs both. There is no reason why Long Beach residents should travel to Signal Hill or Lakewood to patronize The Home Depot when they can, as Mayor Beverly O'Neill is fond of saying, "Shop Long Beach." (No offense intended to Signal Hill and Lakewood.)

Also, we are concerned with residents who say they want to grow Long Beach's business base but only in ways they see fit. They would rather define the economic activity

they would like to see - say engineering and accounting firms - rather than let the free market work.

If the community doesn't want Home Depot, it won't shop there, but let lack of interest be the reason, not the stifling of enterprise or anti-competitive NIMBYism. We heard disapproval like this before Wal-Mart and Starbucks came to Long Beach. Both companies are here, and the sky - and property values - haven't fallen.

Residents opposed to The Home Depot project do have valid concerns about the adequacy of Loynes Drive, which is narrow, winding and built on landfill, and that issue needs to be worked out in the Planning Commission review process. The Home Depot has committed to improving roads into the center, driveways and the like, but Loynes warrants careful consideration.

Many of the complaints we've read about The Home Depot seem more based in fear than fact, particularly those who say employees toiling inside its big boxes aren't treated well.

The Home Depot is one of America's biggest and best companies with an outstanding track record of paying decent wages and health benefits, promoting and training from within, giving second chances to those with imperfect work histories, doing well by investors and donating to charity.

The company does pay lower wages for less-than-key positions, just like most employers, but everyone needs to start somewhere. They pay supervisors, managers and those with trade specialties well, considering the skill sets those jobs require, and give them (ahem) tools they can use in future jobs. Also, Long Beach, where only a quarter of residents have finished college, offers a deep pool of blue-collar talent.

Those who say retail and restaurant jobs aren't good enough for the Eastside should consider that California's unreasonable corporate taxes and high cost of doing business are unattractive to many "desirable" employers. There's a reason companies like Boeing are slowly leaving Southern California, and it's not because they don't like sunshine. Long Beach, with its high levels of poverty, is in no position to turn its nose up at those who sign paychecks.

Another complaint we hear about is day laborers hanging around Home Depot. These guys are the unfortunate byproduct of Home Depot's success and a nation with a failed immigration policy, but they are not the retailer's fault or responsibility. That is a matter for politicians and law enforcement to handle if it arises.

We also keep keep hearing of traffic problems The Home Depot would bring to an already congested area. Traffic will surely increase some but much of it going to Home Depot will be staggered throughout the day. Construction workers are on an earlier schedule than most workers. Weekend traffic, which is already bad, will worsen a little, but presumably most people aren't in as much of a hurry.

We're not sure who came up with the expectation that the project site should mirror a rural area. The site is in the nation's most populous state, on the border of the state's two most populous counties and inside California's fifth-largest city. It's also at the nexus of three freeways and close to one of the West' biggest universities. There is traffic there because people live, work, dine, shop and go to school in the area - activities we wholeheartedly encourage.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

7/7/06

Home Depot debate

 

intensifies

 

Critics focus on traffic woes; supporters emphasize plan's fiscal benefits

By Joe Segura, Staff writer

Article Launched: 07/07/2006 12:07:00 AM PDT

 

Click photo to enlarge

Mona DeLeon of LSA Associates Inc. of Irvine speaks about a... (Kevin Chang / Press-Telegram)

• 1

LONG BEACH -- Critics and supporters of a Home Depot in East Long Beach locked horns during a Planning Commission study session on Thursday, giving a preview of an intensifying debate that could sway a key vote expected in September.

About 120 people attended the 90-minute study session with the focus on a recirculated environmental impact report during which critics predicted the project will aggravate traffic congestion problems throughout the southeast section of the city, while supporters emphasized its economic pluses.

The site at Studebaker Road, adjacent to Loynes Drive is zoned industrial and now holds six above-ground oil storage tanks and pipelines.

The developer's representatives took the podium first, pinpointing the project's advantages, including the potential of $2.5 million in sales tax revenues being pumped into the city's general fund during the first five years.

Doug Otto, a Long Beach attorney representing Home Depot, said the development will be mostly a design center, offering upscale activity, with specialty stores within the store. He added there also will be a high-end restaurant with outdoor dining

and two retail stores. The site also will feature a public-gathering area, he said.

We think it's a tremendous addition to East Long Beach, Otto said.

The attorney noted that Signal Hill has two successful Home Depot stores, adding that the proposed East Long Beach store would improve the area's entrance way into the city through $2.4 million in road improvements.

These home improvement dollars should come to Long Beach, he said.

Dean Richardson, a resident of College Estates, said the area already experiences traffic bottlenecks, especially along Pacific Coast Highway at Second and Seventh streets.

Loynes is a terrible street it's built on a landfill, he said. To increase traffic, is asking for trouble.

Janice Dahl, a spokesperson for the University Park Estates critics, echoed the complaints about Loynes not being designed for major traffic.

Doug Drummond, a former 3rd District City Councilman and recent mayoral candidate, said a complete traffic study needs to be done for the southeast section of the city, not simply spot-zoning the area. He also emphasized there were serious traffic problems at Pacific Coast Highway and Seventh and Second streets that would become worse with development.

We have a tremendously troubled area, he added, prompting applause from the audience.

Third District councilman-elect Gary DeLong was not at the meeting, but this week he said he's still looking at the various issues of the project.

I have an open mind, he said.

Critics said there are also concerns about the traffic becoming worse in the nearby Naples section of Long Beach, and College Park West in Seal Beach.

Concerns about heavy traffic have been linked to two other nearby developments: The proposed Lennar Homes, which includes 425 residential units above 170,000 square feet of new retail space on about 11 acres at the southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Second Street, where the Seaport Marina Hotel has languished for years; and the newly constructed Boeing Co.'s $100 million-plus Pacific Gateway business park of about 830,000 square feet in 10 buildings.

Last month, critics launched a push for a temporary moratorium for all projects in southeast Long Beach, including projects in the wetlands, until the complete impacts of traffic are studied as a whole.

Otto, in a June 15 letter to the Planning Commission, said Home Depot doesn't oppose the preservation of wetlands.

However, during Thursday's study session, supporters focused primarily on the fiscal advantages of a Home Depot design center.

Randy Gordon, president and CEO for the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, said the business community supports improvements to the city's major corridors, enhancing economic development and the city's image.

Ann Cantrell, an environmental activist, criticized the environmental impact report for allegedly failing to address adequately the potential negative impacts the project might have on burrowing owls.

Prior to the meeting, critics also took shots at the recirculated EIR, asserting it ignored problems with soil liquefaction, which causes the noticeable dips along Loynes. The liquefaction is caused, in part, by the fact the area is built on a landfill.

The environmental report was first issued in May 2005, and the recirculated EIR has been available for public review since June 2.

However, after the release of the EIR in 2005, changes were made to elements of the proposed project, including plans to accommodate about 19,000 additional square feet of landscaping, parking aisles and 12 parking spaces.

Also, 1.37 acres of open space located southeast of the intersection of Seventh Street and Silvera Avenue were added to the project, as part of an effort to meet a 30-percent open space requirement.

The project also proposes to replace 265 feet of an existing 9-inch diameter sewer line with a 10-inch diameter sewer line in Vista Street between Daroca and Margo streets. This plan replaces the initial proposal to provide a sanitary sewer connection by paralleling existing lines.

The EIR is available at www.longbeach.gov/plan. Comments on the recirculated EIR should be made to Angela_Reynolds@longbeach.gov. The deadline for the written comments is July 17.

The Planning Commission expects to vote on the plans in September.

Joe Segura can be reached at joe.segura@presstelegram.com or

7/6/06

Opposition to Home Depot is building

Developer says project would put $2.5 million in revenues into city's fund

By Joe Segura, Staff writer Long Beach Press Telegram

Article Launched:07/05/2006 11:10:00 PM PDT

LONG BEACH -- Opponents of a proposed Home Depot in East Long Beach have prepared an aggressive attack against the plans during today's study session on the project's environmental report. The city's Planning Commission has scheduled a noon study session at City Hall on the project that has drawn the ire of nearby residents concerned about an increase in traffic. The site -- at 400 Studebaker Road, adjacent to Loynes Drive -- is zoned industrial and now holds six above-ground oil storage tanks and pipelines. Some environmentalists also oppose the project, contending it could compromise efforts to restore the nearby Los Cerritos Wetlands' sensitive habitat. The opponents, including residents of nearby University Park Estates, initiated a push last month for a moratorium for all projects in the area until the city puts together a master plan for the southeast sector of Long Beach. Janice Dahl, a spokesperson for the University Park Estates critics, said the environmental report has many shortcomings, including an apparent failure to address the liquefaction problem along Loynes Drive. As far as I can tell, there's no mention of it in the study, she said Wednesday. The developer contends the project would pump $2.5 million in sales tax revenues into the city's general fund during the first five years. Supporters also contend the project would increase property tax dollars for city schools. Developers have said the store would replace an unsightly tank farm with a high-quality design center. Also, supporters said Home Depot would be the first project to be required to meet a 30 percent open space requirement. The company plans to purchase a vacant parcel adjacent to Seventh Street and Kettering Elementary School. The developer hopes it will provide a link to existing trails and parks along Los Cerritos Channel, and also provide a landscape buffer between Seventh and Kettering. The developer also contends that more than $1 million in traffic improvements will be made in the project area. The plan will address existing traffic problems and provides improvements beyond required mitigation measures, developers have said. A recirculated environmental impact report predicts that the proposed Home Depot would result in significant air quality problems stemming from increased traffic. There also would be significant and adverse air quality impacts related to the demolition of the oil tanks and grading with the sources coming from emissions from construction vehicles and fugitive dust from the graded areas, the report asserts. Other projects Concerns about heavy traffic are linked to two other nearby development proposals: Lennar Homes wants to build 425 residential units above 170,000 square feet of new retail space on about 11 acres at the southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Second Street, where the Seaport Marina Hotel has languished for years; and the Seal Beach-based Boeing Co.'s $100 million-plus Pacific Gateway business park of about 830,000 square feet in 10 buildings. Environmentalists want a temporary moratorium for all projects in southeast Long Beach, including projects in the wetlands, until the complete impacts of traffic are studied as a whole. In a June 15 letter to the Planning Commission, Long Beach attorney Douglas W. Otto, who represents Home Depot's development efforts, said developers don't oppose the preservation of wetlands. But the proposed moratorium includes Home Depot property, which is not even arguably wetlands, he wrote. Among the findings in the recirculated draft environmental impact report: The project will contribute to an increasing deficiency related to solid waste disposal capacity in the county. The problem will continue until two landfills become fully operational and able to accept waste by rail, according to the report. Caltrans has no plans to improve the Studebaker Road/SR-22 westbound ramps, and doing so would potentially encroach into Los Cerritos Channel. There are no feasible improvements that would mitigate the project's impact on this site. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy certificates, the applicant would have to convert the westbound right-turn lane into a through lane and would also need to construct a westbound right-turn lane with a raised island that allows a free right turn from westbound Second Street to northbound Studebaker Road, the EIR states. The traffic analysis shows the intersections at Pacific Coast Highway at Seventh and Second streets would continue to operate at unsatisfactory levels in the weekend midday peak hours, the study reports. The proposed project creates a significant, unavoidable impact at these intersections during the weekend period, the report added. Joe Segura can be reached at joe.segura@presstelegram.com or (562) 499-1274. --------------------

1/15/04

One of our neigbors writes and asks, "why are the signs down for the Bixby land sale?

One of our board members tells us-

The signs are down because the listing broker Kushman and Wakefield withdrew the property from the market at Bixby Oil & Gas request because there is a fued between the two stakeholders, Bixby Oil & Gas and Bixby Ranch Company!

5/3/04 Geologists Report

May 3, 2004

Angela Reynolds, Environmental Planning Officer

City of Long Beach, Department of Planning and Building, 7^th Floor

333 West Ocean Boulevard

Long Beach, CA  90802

RE:      Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report

            400 Studebaker Drive, Long Beach, CA

Dear Ms. Reynolds:

I am a registered geologist in the state of California (RG 7188), and have been employed in the practice of geology for over 15 years.  Attached is a copy of my registration.  I currently work as the Principal Geologist for Hanover Environmental, Inc. located in Chico, CA.  I have direct experience in Southern California and the area of the proposed  project.  I have performed detailed site inspections of adjacent properties located west and south of the proposed project, and the region surrounding the site. 

Based on my personal inspection of the region surrounding the proposed development, and an evaluation of published works concerning the geology, seismology, and previous work in the site vicinity, I have serious concerns that the proposed project will have substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the following:

1)      Rupture of a known earthquake fault,

2)      Seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction,

3)      Location on a geologic unit or soil that would become unstable as a result of the project,

4)      Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials,

5)      Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment,

6)      Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and

7)      Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

My concerns are detailed in the following sections.

A) Rupture of a known earthquake fault

The Long Beach Earthquake of 1933 was a magnitude 6.4 event associated with right-lateral strike-slip faulting along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone.  There was no surface rupture associated with this earthquake.  It resulted in 120 deaths and over $50 million in property damage. Most of the damaged buildings were of unreinforced masonry. Many school buildings were destroyed.

The proposed project is located in close proximity to the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (south branch fault).  The Newport-Inglewood fault shows evidence of Holocene displacement (during the past 10,000 years) without historic record (Jennings, 1994).  The northern branch shows surface faulting (creep) on the Inglewood Fault since 1957 due to oil and gas withdrawal, and is classified as Historic (displacement during historic time). 

The fault is a right-lateral strike-slip fault (Hart and others, 1986).  The fault has a calculated slip rate of 0.6 mm/year (Petersen and Wesnousky, 1994).  The rate of movement has been relatively constant since the Late Miocene (approximately 6 million years before the present).  The interval between major ruptures is unknown, and the probable magnitudes for future earthquakes are between magnitude 6.0 and 7.4. 

The onshore portion of this fault zone is expressed at the surface as a series of discontinuous, northwest-trending, right-lateral, strike-slip faults exhibiting a left-stepping en-echelon pattern.  Subsidiary normal and reverse faults with associated right-stepping anticlinal folds are typical of this fault zone (Bryant, 1988).

The fault has been characterized as a wrench fault, where deep-seated strike-slip faulting in the basement rocks deforms overlying sedimentary basin deposits.  Slip on the deep-seated fault causes a series of en echelon folds and faults in the sedimentary cover.  Evaluation of historic aerial photographs showing the proposed project and surrounding region indicates that a strongly linear trend of landforms suggestive of a significant fault zone passes through the southern margin of the proposed project.  This trend continues to be observed for significant distances northwest and southeast of the subject site.

The CDMG also lists the project site as within an Aligned Seismic Activity area, as defined by a significantly linear trend of accurately located earthquake epicenters (magnitude 0.2 or greater).  These areas are generally aligned with strike slip faults having Quaternary displacement, but not necessarily with historic surface rupture (Jennings, 1994).    

The proposed project is located near an area of historic oil withdrawal, and the petroleum was considered to be concentrated there due to the structural trap formed by the deep seated fault.  Evidence of subsidence, possibly related to historic oil withdrawal has been observed in the estuary area southwest of the subject site. 

Recent evaluation of geophysical and paleontological data have detected a history of movement and uplift associated with the Puente Hills, San Joaquin Hills, and Santa Ana Mountains that suggest a blind thrust fault exists at depth in the vicinity of the proposed project.  This type of fault could generate a magnitude 6.8 to 7.3 earthquake (Grant and others, 1999).

These evidences combine to form the conclusion that the proposed project is located in close proximity to a major, active seismic zone.  Additionally, future movement along the Newport-Inglewood fault is a strong possibility.  Given these data, development of the site would have the potential to expose persons to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death.

B) Seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction

The proposed project is located in an area identified by the State of California as having the potential for liquefaction (Seismic Hazard Zone, Los Alamitos Quadrangle, 1999).  Liquefaction is a failure mechanism whereby water-saturated soils experience rearrangement of the grains leading to denser soil.  When this happens the grains no longer support the overburden to the same degree, and ground failure occurs.  The honeycomb soil particle structure that previously supported the ground surface is lost during the disturbance, leading to ground failure.

Soils in the site vicinity are mapped as Qt (Quaternary nonmarine terrace deposits), and Qal (Alluvium).  These soils are dated as Pleistocene to Recent, and are generally unconsolidated and lacking cementation.  I have also observed dredge tailings and unsorted waste in nearby sediments.  These materials were emplaced without compaction or consolidation and represent a substantial risk if wetted and subjected to seismic shaking.

The subject site is located near an estuary (the Los Cerritos Channel) that is flooded by tidal waters.  Groundwater in the site vicinity is shallow, and groundwater elevations are potentially influenced by the tidal cycle.  Site soils are normally saturated at shallow depth, and saturated soils are at risk in seismic events for ground failure or liquefaction. 

Landscaping normally present at large retail facilities (such as Home Depot), requires addition of water to sustain it.  If irrigation water is introduced in excess (as is commonly the case), the soils will become more prone to liquefaction or failure during a seismic event.  If this occurs it will supplement the water content of soils that were previously saturated, and potentially enhance the ground failure or liquefaction potential of the site.  Given these data, development of the site would have the potential to expose persons to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death.

C) Be located on a soil that would become unstable as a result of the project

Based on the fact that the proposed development would be located within a previously identified area that has the potential for liquefaction (Seismic Hazard Zone, Los Alamitos Quadrangle, 1999), additional loading of the soil related to the placement of a retail center could potentially increase the risk of ground failure. 

Increased truck traffic of both loaded and empty trucks will occur on a daily basis if the proposed project is constructed.  Truck traffic simulates minor seismic events as the ground is subjected to shaking combined with compressive force, and the effect on soils that have the potential for liquefaction is to accelerate the failure event. 

Loynes Drive will be the major east-west access road to service the new development, and the increase in truck and other vehicle traffic would create a serious risk of unstable soils or ground failure if the proposed project is constructed.  Loynes Drive was built upon fill material consisting of loosely placed waste, dredge tailings, and native organic materials including peat deposits.  These sediments are unconsolidated and uncompacted except where roadwork has been performed.  Previous engineering studies have determined that traffic on the road is detrimental to the road, causing subsidence and settlement that degrades the roadbed.

As you travel over Loynes Drive it is apparent that differential settlement has affected the roadbed, and created a dangerous condition for vehicles.  Subsidence created shallow swales that caused vehicles to be thrown from the road if the curve was approached with excessive speed.  To mitigate the problem the City of Long Beach required the road to be narrowed from two lanes into a single lane through the curved section.  Road maintenance has been ongoing since the road was constructed, but no solution to the differential settlement and ground failure has been adopted.

Increased truck and vehicle traffic is to be expected on Loynes Drive if the proposed project is constructed.  The increased traffic would have the potential to expose persons to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death.  The increased traffic would also subject the City of Long Beach to increased road maintenance, police, ambulance, and emergency personnel services for accidents related to degrading road conditions.    

D) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials

The routine transport and use of hazardous materials on the proposed project site is a primary concern for the public and the environment.  The concern is related to fuels contained in truck saddle tanks; hydraulic oil present in trucks and equipment used onsite; paints, solvents, and cleaning chemicals stored onsite; pesticides and fertilizers stored onsite; and lubricants present in trucking and hydraulic systems.  These materials would normally be present onsite as retail products, and also be present in trucks that would continuously arrive and depart from the site.  A small amount of these materials would also be used onsite for maintenance, repair, and servicing of the rental vehicles and equipment kept onsite.

Accidents related to the handling of products inventoried onsite, the use of trucks to bring the materials onto and off the site, and disposal onsite are a foreseeable event.  Given the shallow depth to groundwater and permeability of the site subsurface, any contaminants released on the surface would migrate immediately into the water table and eventually migrate to surface waters of the state.  The release of hazardous materials would have the potential to expose persons and the environment to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death.

E) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment

Rupture of a saddle tank , hydraulic line, or other type of storage container is a common and foreseeable event given the proposed operation of the site.  Based on the site location a release of hazardous materials would create runoff to the waters of the Los Cerritos Channel, the Alamitos Bay, and eventually the Pacific Ocean unless controlled immediately and removed from the site. 

Given the shallow depth to groundwater and permeability of the site subsurface, any contaminants released on the surface would migrate immediately into the water table and eventually migrate to surface waters of the state.  A Stormwater Pollution, Prevention and Control Plan should be required for the site.

Based on the quantities of hazardous materials stored onsite for retail sales, an Emergency Spill Control and Containment Plan should be prepared for any hazardous materials stored onsite (including petroleum products, fuels, paints, thinners, solvents, pesticides, and other cleaning and degreasing chemicals stored onsite for retail sale). 

Based on the proximity of surface water, the shallow depth to groundwater, and the surface drainage onsite that enters the waters of Los Cerritos Channel, Alamitos Bay, and the Pacific Ocean almost immediately after exiting the site, approval of the proposed project would have the potential to expose persons and the environment to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death.

F) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school

The proposed project is located within one-half mile of an elementary school (Kettering Elementary), and one-half mile of a middle school (Hill Middle School).  The proposed project routinely stores, sells, and in some cases uses hazardous materials.  A brief list of the hazardous materials stored and retailed at the facility include: petroleum products including fuels and lubricants; solvents and solvent based cleaning products; paints and paint thinners; pesticides and fertilizers; and various specialty chemicals for degreasing and cleanup applications. Additionally, truck traffic in high volume is expected at the site, and trucks contain fuel products and lubricants of a hazardous nature.

In general these chemicals are not stored in bulk quantities, but based on the proximity of the first groundwater onsite, the permeability of soil materials, and the stormwater drainage directly to waters of the state; a small release of hazardous materials onsite has the potential to expose persons and the environment to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death.

G) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

The site is located next to the Alamitos Generating Station, 690 North Studebaker Road, operated by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).  A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted for the generating station in 1997 determined that two oil spills had been recorded for the property.  No further details were available to the author at the time of this response, but the status of the oil releases will need to be investigated.

California state law provides that no amount of waste oil is acceptable for release to the subsurface.  If waste oil has been released, it could potentially expose persons and the environment to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death.

PG&E has been the source of numerous releases of solvents, fuels, metals, and waste oil into the environment at a substantial number of sites in California, and has been shown to resist efforts to disclose those releases to the public and regulatory community.  A thorough investigation of the site subsurface conditions including the collection of soil and grab groundwater samples is recommended, along with characterization of any structures, tankage, or residual equipment related to former operations onsite.

The generating station historically released acid laden gas as a byproduct of the steam generation, and the mist affected linens and surface finishes in the surrounding area.  The potential for these materials to have created a dangerous condition in site soils has not been investigated, but is deserving of further attention.  The sampling program should screen the site soils for metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, fuel compounds, and solvents.  If any of these materials has been released onsite, it could potentially expose persons and the environment to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death.

Please do not hesitate to contact me in the Hanover office at (530) 342-1333 if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Hanover, Inc.

Dana R. Brown, R.G.

Registered Geologist No. 7188

----------------------------------------------------------------------

4/29/2004

---------------------------------------------------------------

4/24/2004

4/1/04

Public Meeting For Proposed Retail Center Author: Amy Bentley-Smith    Date: April 1, 2004 Publication: Grunion Gazette, The (Long Beach, CA) Page: 3A

A retail center on current oil tank farm land - at the terminus of Loynes Drive along Studebaker Road - is moving forward, but is still in the early stages. Next Wednesday, April 7, the community is invited to attend a scoping meeting about the project, which is slated to include a roughly 140,000-square-foot The Home Depot and garden center, a 7,000-square-foot restaurant and a total of 45,000 square feet of additional retail space. The meeting begins at 6 p.m. at Kettering Elementary, 550...